Cited by 2,798Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsDelphi Technique in ResearchClinical practice guidelines implementation

GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias)

Guyatt, Gordon H., Oxman, Andrew D., Vist, Gunn, Kunz, Regina, Brozek, Jan, Alonso-Coello, Pablo, Montori, Victor, Akl, Elie A. +2 more·2011·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

In the GRADE approach, randomized trials start as high-quality evidence and observational studies as low-quality evidence, but both can be rated down if most of the relevant evidence comes from studies that suffer from a high risk of bias. Well-established limitations of randomized trials include failure to conceal allocation, failure to blind, loss to follow-up, and failure to appropriately consider the intention-to-treat principle. More recently recognized limitations include stopping early for apparent benefit and selective reporting of outcomes according to the results. Key limitations of observational studies include use of inappropriate controls and failure to adequately adjust for prognostic imbalance. Risk of bias may vary across outcomes (e.g., loss to follow-up may be far less for all-cause mortality than for quality of life), a consideration that many systematic reviews ignore. In deciding whether to rate down for risk of bias--whether for randomized trials or observational studies--authors should not take an approach that averages across studies. Rather, for any individual outcome, when there are some studies with a high risk, and some with a low risk of bias, they should consider including only the studies with a lower risk of bias.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.017

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., Alonso-Coello, P., Montori, V., Akl, E. A., Djulbegovic, B., & Falck-Ytter, Y.
Affiliations
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Nasjonalt Kunnskapssenter for Helsetjenesten (NO)
  • University of Basel (CH)
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
  • Case Western Reserve University (US)
Corresponding author
Guyatt, Gordon H.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-04
Volume
64
Issue
4
Pages
407-415
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1981680557
Cited by
2,798
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 130 · 2025: 182 · 2024: 238 · 2023: 199 · 2022: 264 · 2021: 280 · 2020: 284 · 2019: 198 · 2018: 184 · 2017: 180 · 2016: 176 · 2015: 179 · 2014: 120 · 2013: 95 · 2012: 65
FWCI
100.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
GRADE, risk of bias, quality of evidence, observational studies, allocation concealment, blinding, loss to follow-up, intention-to-treat analysis, early stopping, selective reporting
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Male, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Publication Bias, Risk Assessment, Evidence-Based Practice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review